Legal Opinion

McCaughn v. Electric Storage Battery Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided January 31, 1933No. 4752PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court holding that the tax was illegally levied, assessed, and collected on the batteries made and sold by the appellee by virtue of section 900 of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, 40 Stat. 1122, 42 Stat. 291. This section provides;

“That there shall be levied, assessed, col*716lected, and paid upon the following articles sold or leased by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, a tax equivalent to the following percentages of the price for which so sold or leased — •
“(1) Automobile trucks and automobile Wagons, (including…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Universal Battery Co. v. United States and Four Other CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Universal Battery Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  4. Dooley v. PeaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  5. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1918

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Pink v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
  2. The Municipal Bond Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
  3. Commercial Solvents Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
  4. Electric Storage Battery Co. v. RothensiesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1936

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API